CASE NUMBER: Index Number 152439/2013
Adam R. Rose v. Yahoo Inc. et. al
TO: Judge Donna Mills
111 Centre Street, Room 545
New York, NY 10013
ANONYMOUS BLOGGER/(S) STUYVESANT TOWN FRAUD’s
OBJECTIONS TO Millionaire Real Estate Exec. Adam Rose’s Request for Constitutionally Protected Identity Information
In order to maintain my ANONYMITY, which is my constitutional right, I will post my objections to Millionaire Real Estate Exec. Adam Rose’s ( of Rose Associates, Inc., 200 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010 (212) ) attempt to violate my rights by trying to get confidential and protected identity information of ANONYMOUS BLOGGER/(S) through his request for pre-action discovery, TO THE WEBSITES named in the request, so the court can go to the websites and verify that these objections are coming from the Anonymous Blogger/(s) of the websites.
I, THE ANONYMOUS BLOGGER/(S) of the websites, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury to the truth of the following:
1. I am an Anonymous Blogger/(s) that is the author of the tumblr, wordpress and twitter posts attached to Millionaire Real Estate Exec. Adam Rose’s affidavit as exhibits 1-3. I submit these affirmed objections to oppose Adam Rose’s request for pre-action discovery of all identity information of the blogger/s, blogs and posts by the means stated in this court’s order of March 25, 2014 (i.e. written objections) which was sent to me by Tumblr and Twitter (wordpress is not aware of the action).
2. I have never been served a copy of the stipulated order that was filed on April 5, 2014 as directed in the order, but to preserve my rights I am submitting these objections and serving and filing them through the courts on-line filing system which I am told automatically e-mails attorneys for Adam Rose and Tumblr and Twitter.
3. First and foremost, the frivolous request should be denied because Adam Rose has simply failed to even IDENTIFY ANY STATEMENTS and before the court considers anything, Adam Rose was required to show an actionable claim of defamatory statements —- he failed to do so, and even failed to point to STATEMENTS that he doesn’t like. This Blogger respectfully requests that this court actually read the posts attached to Adam Rose’s Affidavit – to see that the QUOTED TEXT that Adam Rose points to including: “corrupt white collar criminal” and Adam Rose’s malicious FALSE STATEMENT in his Affidavit paragraph 7:”…even claiming I[Adam Rose] was under “indictment” or Adam Rose’s allegations that the blog posts falsely say that he is being under investigation by the federal authorities ARE NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BLOG POSTS. The fact that Adam Rose absolutely LIED about the very existence of posts “claiming [Adam Rose] was under “indictment”” should be enough for this court to DENY his request based on his INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH.
Additionally, the phrase “connection to child pornography” was used in a QUESTION —- followed by question marks and in the context of discussing the court documents that allege Adam Rose and his attorneys are in possession of documents from a legal case that include documents depicting child pornography. See Affidavit of Adam Rose Exhibit 1, posts 3 discussing latest developments in court proceedings.
4. Second, even with Adam Rose’s FAILURE to EVEN SAY THE STATEMENTS which defeats his attempt to make out a claim for defamation, this court must look at the random words IN CONTEXT AND THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS. For instance: Adam Rose conveniently and with intent to DECEIVE THIS COURT TO OBTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED INFORMATION through deceit, Adam Rose fails to mention that before each of the words that Adam Rose doesn’t like and in the full context of the sentences are statements: “as alleged in court proceedings” “in court documents” “alleged” —— all commenting and reporting on legal proceedings and the allegations in those documents as well as blogger/s’ opinions about the allegations.
5. CASE LAW: Even though Adam Rose did not even quote any statements that he is required to do to allege a claim of defamation, even his lawyer Debra Guzov, Esq. argued in a case against pre-action discovery the following which applies here: These cases and statements were found NOT ACTIONABLE:
“Bruno v. Shukart, 177 N.Y.S. 2D 51 (Monroe Sup. 1958)(“[y]ou’re a liar and a crook” and “[y]ou’re a no-good crook” held to be non-actionable, and holding that the term “crook” in particular is not slander per se.”)
Torain v. Liu, 2007 WL 2331073 *2-3 (statements made by city council member at a press conference that plaintiff was a “lunatic” and “a sick pedophile loser” were not defamatory.”)
Polish Am. Immigration Relief Comm. Inc.,189 A.D. 2D at 374, 596 N.Y.S.2d 756 (1993)(description of organization as “madhouse” and its members as “thieves” and “false do-gooders” constituted non-actionable expressions of opinions under Federal or State constitutional standards.”
Kneival v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2004)([t]he context in which the statement appears is paramount to our analysis [of whether statement is defamatory], and in some cases can be dispositive”and “although the word ‘pimp’ may be reasonably capable of defamatory meaning when read in isolation, we agree with the District Court’s assessment that ‘the term loses its meaning when considered in the context.” Id. At 1074.
Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507, 509 (9th Cir. 1987)(“[c]ontext does resolve the matter”).
Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 286 (1974)(protecting “rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative expression of contempt” such as defendant’s characterization of plaintiff as a “scab” and a “traitor” with “rotten principles” )
Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271, 279 (2008)(“[e]xpressions of opinion are deemed privileged, and no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation.”)
“The New York Constitution provides absolute protection from defamation from defamation suits for statements of rhetorical hyperbole.” Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jamkowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 249 (1991)(the “protections afforded by the guarantees of free press and speech in the New York Constitution is often broader than the minimum required by” the Federal Constitution.)
The Blogs in question discuss various legal and political issues concerning the financial crisis, the integrity of the American legal system and legal cases across the country and the world and have a worldwide public interest AND do not focus solely on Adam Rose or the Stuyvesant Town foreclosure and tax fraud.
6. The blogs in question are a public forum to discuss the various legal cases and issues concerning the financial crisis, mortgages, foreclosures (including the Bernie Madoff cases), as well as cases involving the public integrity and misconduct of public officials, police, judges, lawyers, and wall street executives across the country and worldwide. The blog also reports on the various investigations and U.S. Attorneys in many states’ actions and decisions. This reporting on public legal proceedings concerns topics of great public interest, not only in New York City, but across the United States and WORLDWIDE.
7. The blogs in question do not focus solely on Adam Rose, nor solely on the Stuyvesant Town foreclosure and the Roberts v. Tishman, 13 N.Y.3d 270 (2009) case http://tinyurl.com/c6jgml6 which found that those involved in Stuyvesant Town did in fact improperly violate the New York rent stabilized law and they did in fact obtain over $25 million dollars in improper tax breaks (i.e. which can be defined as ‘tax fraud’). Adam Rose was involved in the management of Stuyvesant Town during that time and also was involved in the planning stages of the owners’ scheme to destabilize rent stabilized apartments at Stuyvesant Town. See as reported on another website: http://nymag.com/realestate/features/53797/ (“At the weekly staff meetings at the on-site management office[Rose Associates, Inc. for Stuyvesant Town], the most important question was, How many rent-stabilized apartments had been recovered? You would get a daily e-mail if they got a unit back,” a former employee explains. Rob [Speyer, Tishman Speyer]’s team had developed a two-part strategy for making the Stuy Town deal work. They would remove tenants who were illegally occupying rent-stabilized apartments, at one point employing three different law firms in the effort [Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins& Goidel, Belkin Burden]. Tishman Speyer has issued 1,009 nonrenewal notices, totaling 12 percent of the rent-stabilized leases. At one of the meetings, in December 2006, Adam Rose, the co-president of Rose Associates who was managing Stuy Town’s operations at the time, set off alarms among the group when he told them it would be realistic to recover just 8 percent of the rent-stabilized apartments in the first year, which was almost double the historical average.”).
8. The blogs in question report on various legal proceedings, police cases, financial frauds across the country as well as my personal political and religious opinions at times. Because Adam Rose doesn’t agree with the personal political and religious opinions of the anonymous blogger/s doesn’t give him the right to violate my First Amendment Rights to report on pending litigation and to express my political and religious opinions (i.e., Adam Rose attached a tweet (1 of only 3 tweets) as a post he didn’t like which is directed at the U.S. State Department concerning Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and my political opinion that the U.S. State department shouldn’t get involved and should instead deal with the financial crisis here in the United States). (See Adam Rose’s Exhibit 3).
Statute of Limitations for defamation cause of action has expired= no valid cause of action
9. I object to the request for pre-action discovery of confidential identity information on the grounds that the Statute of Limitations has expired for Adam Rose’s alleged claims for defamation concerning any blog posts and statements he is complaining about prior to March of 2013. And request that the court disregard Adam Rose’s attempt to deceive this court into thinking he has a valid claim by using words and phrases that do not even exist in the attached 4 tumblr posts, 1 wordpress post, and 3 tweets (twitter) attached as ‘evidence’ to Adam Rose’s affidavit.
10. The Blogs in question: (1) Tumblr blog: http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/ (2) Wordpress: http://tishmanspeyerfraud.wordpress.com/category/stuyvesant-town/ and (3) Twitter: https://twitter.com/StuyTownFraud have been in existence for 3 ½ years (tumblr), 3 years (twitter) and 2 years (wordpress). While not all those who follow the blogs are publicly identified, the twitter blog is followed by (meaning, the accounts specifically request to be notified when new tweets are posted) news organizations (e.g. ny post), reporters from nationwide news organizations (e.g., bloomberg news), fraud whistleblowers, and politicians (chuck schumer and senator liz krueger) and others interested in the public discussions. There are no commercial advertisements on the blogs, it is for Blogger/s commentary and expression of opinions concerning public interest cases and events.
The Requests are overbroad and improperly/illegally request confidential and protected information for: EVERY LONG-IN INFORMATION for the life of the Blogs as well as EVERY identifying information for EVERY POST – including posts that cannot be the subject of any actionable claim (Statute of Limitations expired) and posts that are not alleged by Adam Rose as defamatory and are NOT NECESSARY AND MATERIAL to form a claim.
11. I object to the request for pre-action discovery of confidential identity information on the grounds that the request is overbroad asks for EVERY LOG-IN for identifying information and for EVERY and ALL POSTS which not only violate privacy and First Amendment Rights: (Adam Rose does not have a valid actionable claim for any post PRIOR to March 18, 2013 (he filed this action on March 18, 2014 – 1 year statute of limitation) and but also this information is “NOT NECESSARY OR MATERIAL” to form a complaint which Adam Rose has to prove also to violate blogger/s constitutional rights.
12. THE DATES OF ALL THE BLOG POSTS are Publicly Available on the posts. On Tumblr, the dates of whether or not any posts are under the one year statute of limitation are easily publicly accessible: GO TO THE ARCHIVE button on the left column of the Tumblr web site. There, it goes by date – and put the cursor over the archived posts, and the EXACT date shows up. Adam Rose does not need LOG IN information to ascertain the dates. Wordpress and Twitter have the dates on them.
NO VALID CAUSE OF ACTION for DEFAMATION: Defamation requires the exact statement that Adam Rose alleges is defamatory. He has not shown ANYWHERE on ANY POST he used as EVIDENCE any quoted statements that he is alleging is defamatory.
13. I object to the request for pre-action disclosure on the grounds that Adam Rose has failed to allege any statements in the attached blog posts to his Affidavit Tumblr (4 posts); Wordpress (1 post) and Twitter (3 tweets) that are grounds for a valid cause of action for defamation.
14. Adam Rose lied about when he became aware of the blogs because in May 9, 2012, Adam Rose and his lawyer Debra Guzov, Esq. sent TUMBLR a notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claiming the blog violated a copyright in “emails” that he sent to the Plaintiff in the pending lawsuits reported on in the blogs that were part of the public court record AND an email posted on another blog (Lux Living) in which Adam Rose harassed THAT anonymous blogger. See blog post attached to Adam Rose’s Affidavit Exhibit 1 (posts 1 and 2) that describes the incident. See Attachment 1below, a copy of the May 9, 2012 (two years ago) Adam Rose and Debra Guzov, Esq. Attempt to claim defamation with the DMCA letter.
15. Adam Rose’s First Attempt to Illegally Obtain the Information Requested in this Action: the Constitutionally Protected Anonymous Blogger/s Identities: On May 9, 2012, Adam Rose and his lawyer sent a DMCA letter to Tumblr concerning harassing emails that Adam Rose wrote to two tenants: one, the anonymous blogger of the blog Lux Living, and the others to the female tenant lawyer who is the plaintiff in the pending litigations against Adam Rose. All those emails were and are still in the public court records. BUT, in order to dispute a frivolous DMCA notice, TUMBLR requires the Anonymous Blogger’s to IDENTIFY themselves. This is another illegal way to violate the rights of Anonymous Bloggers. To protect myself, physically also since the documented violent acts that Adam Rose is accused of (and has never denied in any court document) are quite violent and the acts Adam Rose is accused of committing against the female tenant lawyer in the pending cases are outrageous years long attacks, I chose not to disclose my Identity and to voluntary remove the QUOTES of the emails (since no actual physical emails were posted, just quotes from the court documents.) Compare the First Two blog posts in Exhibit 1 of Adam Rose’s Affidavit. At no point was this Anonymous Blogger found guilty of violating ANY terms of service of Tumblr or even the DMCA, I just chose to exercise my First Amendment Right to maintain my anonymity.
16. Also, even though Adam Rose and Debra Guzov, Esq. told TUMBLR the blog was ‘defamatory’ and violated their terms of service —- TUMBLR did not agree AND did not take down the blog because this blog did NOT VIOLATE THE TERMS OF SERVICE, and IS NOT DEFAMATORY, NOT HARRASSING, NOT ABUSIVE – according to TUMBLR’s refusal to agree with Adam Rose and Debra Guzov’s claims of ‘defamation.’
17. Adam Rose’s SECOND Attempt to Illegally Obtain the Information Requested in this Action: the Constitutionally Protected Anonymous Blogger/s Identities: As reported in the Blog post in Exhibit 1 of Adam Rose’s Affidavit, posts 1 and 2 (dated March 2014), Adam Rose and Debra Guzov, Esq. asked the disciplinary committee of the Bar to attempt to get the Anonymous Blogger/s identities by harassing the female lawyer plaintiff in the pending litigation in concealed from the public proceedings free of charge to Adam Rose and to hide from the public this second illegal attempt to violate the First Amendment Rights of anonymous bloggers. ADAM ROSE AND HIS LAWYER DEBRA GUZOV DO NOT DENY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE POSTS CONCERNING THIS FACT.
18. Defamation requires specific statements and the statements must be defamatory IN CONTEXT. Here, Adam Rose just says words (and phrases that he QUOTES THAT ARE NOT IN ANY BLOG POST ATTACHED AS EVIDENCE). See above case law paragraph 5 above. Adam Rose conveniently leaves out the fact that the words he objects to are preceded by the phrases including “as alleged in court documents” – IN CONTEXT discussing allegations in court documents and opinions about them.
18 a. Also, THERE IS NO WHERE IN THE BLOG POSTS submitted by Adam Rose as Evidence nor any statement that he identifies supporting his claim that the blog posts “falsely accuse [Adam Rose] of being under investigation by the federal authorities” Adam Rose Affidavit Paragraph 5. Adam Rose didn’t even quote any statement to support this – all this court has to do is ACTUALLY READ THE POSTS – and only the POSTS SUBMITTED.
19. The Specific Posts attached as Evidence: Tumblr Posts (4 of them)(Adam Rose Affidavit, Exhibit 1):
(a) Posts 1 and 2 (dated March 11, 2014, March 7, 2014): commentary about Adam Rose and Debra Guzov’s DMCA attempt to shut down the blog with false claims of defamation (first attempt), the commentary on the e-mail evidence submitted in court proceedings concerning Adam Rose’s harassment through e-mails against another anonymous blogger in addition to the female lawyer who is the plaintiff in pending litigation, and the secret proceedings by the new york courts free of charge to Adam Rose to illegally obtain anonymous bloggers identities second attempt): any references to Adam Rose refer to him in the CONTEXT of describing the legal proceedings and the allegations of the complaints including the causes of action against him racketeering, felony criminal mischief; the posts describe documents in court proceedings submitted as evidence and my opinion and commentary on them.
(b) Post 3 (dated February 3, 2014): commentary IN CONTEXT discussing the latest news concerning legal proceedings, allegations of the submitted court documents Additionally, the phrase “connection to child pornography” was used in a QUESTION —- followed by question marks and in the context of discussing the court documents that allege Adam Rose and his attorneys are in possession of legal files that contain Disney documents that contain child pornographic scenes “Disney scripts in that lawsuit contained child pornography, sex in front of a priest, threesomes and other scenes that Disney and the Quinn Emanuel law firm wouldn’t want the public to know about”; as well as the secret proceedings by the new york courts free of charge to Adam Rose to illegally obtain anonymous bloggers identities (second attempt): any references to Adam Rose refer to him in the CONTEXT of describing the legal proceedings and the allegations of the complaints including the causes of action against him racketeering, felony criminal mischief; the posts describe documents in court proceedings submitted as evidence and my opinion and commentary on them.
(c) Post 4 (dated December 12, 2013): The Headline is directed at the New Yor Police Department (NYPD): “Hey NYPD, sound familiar?: FBI probe results in 18 LA sheriffs deputies indicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations”; concerns commentary and reporting on the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department including a press conference video, and references the similar allegations present in new york litigation against the New York Police Department and specifically the 13th precinct of the NYPD (the police officers who have alleged ties to Adam Rose and Stuyvesant Town.); and this Blogger/s’ opinions and hopes that a similar probe and arrest would occur concerning the defendants in the pending new york litigation (which include Adam Rose who was identified specifically as a DEFENDANT – clearly referring to and commenting on legal proceedings).
20. The Specific Posts attached as Evidence: Wordpress Post (1 post)(Adam Rose Affidavit, Exhibit 2): Post 1 (dated July 3, 2013): The headline concerns the adding of an additional defendant to the current pending lawsuits concerning the robo-signing in the New York City Housing Courts and the commentary and description of the allegations along with the identification of the other DEFENDANTS – including Adam Rose. And the posts concerns the description of the allegations. It appears as though Adam Rose wants to incite this Court by including a post concerning a defendant who is a colleague of this court (like other judges in the New York State Supreme Court system whose personal opinions and biases have improperly affected their decisions in the pending cases. This Anonymous Blogger/s respectfully requests that this Court not be sucked into Adam Rose’s improper attempt to incite this Court to rule against Anonymous Blogger/s by including a clearly non-defamatory and irrelevant post which focuses on legal proceedings brought against judges. Any references to Adam Rose refer to him in the CONTEXT of describing the legal proceedings and the allegations of the complaints and my opinion and commentary on them.
21. The Specific Posts attached as Evidence: Twitter Tweets (3 post)(Adam Rose Affidavit, Exhibit 3): First and Foremost, tweets are limited to 140 characters the CONTEXT and nature of tweets must be taken into consideration. Hashtags= “#” are used to drive twitter traffic to articles of interest concerning those words. A hashtag with a person’s name cannot be considered defamatory.
(a) Tweet 1 (concerns a Question to Governor Cuomo regarding his million dollar campaign contributor (Rob Speyer) a named defendant in some stuyvesant town legal proceedings (which Adam Rose managed at the time the allegations concern). The tweet includes a link to the above mentioned non-defamatory tumblr post concerning the legal proceedings that included the allegations that defendant Adam Rose and his attorneys and co-defendants were in unauthorized possession of the plaintiff attorney’s legal files which included a separate case against Disney, including Disney scripts containing child pornographic scenes. See Paragraph 19(b) above. Hashtags (#) indicated articles and websites that discuss and express their opinions on the hashtags. Adam Rose is not even in the tweet, just the link to the above-mentioned tumblr post.
(b) Tweet 2 (September 2, 2013 concerns this Anonymous Blogger/s personal political and religious opinions concerning the U.S.’s involvement with Israel and Israel’s request at the time for U.S. Involvement with its political agenda concerning Syrian Rebels at the time.) The Tweets MUST BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT – this tweet was part of a succession of tweets (the first of 3 – the second one continued the conversation: “@StateDept Should we as #Syrian #Rebels 2TakeCareOF #NYPD #criminals & #Tishman Speyer # Adam Rose #racketeers? #TakeCareOfYourCriminals” and then another Tweet that starts off: “Dear #SyrianRebels…” Again, the hashtags are merely references that you click on and the hashtag lists all articles/tweets concerning that hashtag. The “#AdamRose” hashtag – it is identified in blue meaning that when you click on his name, all tweets/articles on him will be listed —- including the tweets concerning his involvement with the numerous racketeering Stuyvesant town litigation. A HASHTAG leads the reader to ALL ARTICLES about the hashtag. Here, ‘Adam Rose’ name was a hashtag after a list of various hashtags which would lead to articles about the stuyvesant town racketeering (which is a crime which victims can sue for civil damages) cases. This tweet is my political and religious opinion and commentary on world wide news with great public interest. Just because Adam Rose doesn’t like or agree with my political and religious beliefs, doesn’t mean that the tweet is defamatory and to rule otherwise, would be a denial of my right to express my political and religious beliefs as well.
(c) Tweet 3 (July 4, 2013 this tweet is commentary concerning my belief that crimes against veterans are hate crimes and hate crimes if committed by individuals should be given prison sentences. In no way does that tweet make a statement that Adam Rose was sentenced to prison. Again, a hashtag leads to articles about the words – this hashtag concerning Adam Rose would lead to articles concerning the pending ligation and the allegations that Adam Rose committed felony criminal mischief against the female attorney tenant and violently destroyed property including her families’ property (including her father who was a Veteran) (all reported in legal proceedings and on the blogs) after she filed her racketeering lawsuit. Just because Adam Rose doesn’t like or agree with my political doesn’t mean that the tweet is defamatory and to rule otherwise, would be a denial of my right to express my political views.
Conclusion: Adam Rose failed to even identify STATEMENTS that he claims are defamatory and DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACTIONABLE VALID CAUSES OF ACTION – and even if he did, the information he requests (i.e. ALL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOR THE WHOLE 3 years of blog information) is NOT MATERIAL AND NECESSARY to form a claim.
Adam Rose has failed to support any reason to violate the First Amendment Rights to confidentiality and anonymity of Bloggers and it is requested that this Court deny the request.
x Stuyvesant Town Fraud (Anonymous Blogger)
(May 9, 2012 – Adam Rose’s First Attempt to illegally obtain Bloggers’ Identity – DMCA Notice)